From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754072Ab1JJMio (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:38:44 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:26746 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752643Ab1JJMin (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:38:43 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,517,1312182000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="76544612"
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:41:55 +0200
From: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd/db8500-prcmu: rename init function
Message-ID: <20111010124155.GM3686@sortiz-mobl>
References: <1317833447-714-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
 <CACRpkdY=u2mmOZSeJRFvBbRyLwkbpKxSzKPx9gu-i8416KK5jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111010102917.GK3686@sortiz-mobl>
 <CACRpkda2kxLMnEm1tQjb7d8Nn+hrJj3=TOOx=Qq75695uKBNMg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkda2kxLMnEm1tQjb7d8Nn+hrJj3=TOOx=Qq75695uKBNMg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Linus,

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:08:21PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> >> I can also prepare a pull request for the stuff you want if it makes
> >> things easier for you, just tell me what you want in it.
> >
> > I took the first 12 patches plus your 2 review fixes. I indeed feel the rest
> > of the patchset would need some additional work. If there's really nothing we
> > can do about factorizing more of this code between 8500 and 5500, then I'll
> > look at it for the 3.3 merge window.
> 
> OK seems like a fair deal. I have different ideas, like for example
> abstracting the MBOX parts into a new mailbox subsystem since
> abstracting mailboxes has been discussed before. 
Many subsystems and archs would benefit from that, i think.

> So maybe we can
> break out all of that code into drivers/mbox and proceed from
> there getting pure MFD arbiters in drivers/mfd.
Sounds good to me.

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/